Hannibal: A Hellenistic Life (49 page)

64.
The location of the pre-second-century ports is still debated, see discussion in Lancel, 1997, 172–192; also Hurst, 1994 and Hurst and Stager, 1978.

65.
Hurst, 1994; Hurst and Stager, 1978 on the excavation of the harbour and date. The description of the impressive harbours of Carthage dates to the mid-second century, and archaeological evidence also places the earliest construction of the harbours we see at Carthage today to the period after the Hannibalic War. See Hoyos, 2010, 92. Recent detailed study in Blackman et al., 2013 on ship sheds discusses estimates of size, number and type of ships from the evidence for the great navies of the ancient world, including Carthage.

66.
As described by Polybius in the second century
BCE
, Carthage ‘is situated at the inmost point of a gulf into which it protrudes on a strip of land, almost entirely surrounded on one
side by the sea and on the other by a lake’ (1.73.3–6). Like other Phoenician foundations (e.g. Cadiz and Motya) Carthage was located in a geographically perfect position for a port and had been placed for its strategic situation: see Hunt, 2009: 138.

67.
Although Appian’s description, taken from Polybius’ account, may not be completely accurate to the mid-third century it does present an idea of Carthage just before its destruction. Hellenistic fortification walls, not dissimilar to those at New Carthage, incorporated the forces and supplies. These were known as ‘casemates’.

68.
The full extent of the working of government remains uncertain. The term ‘commonwealth’ is used by Bondi, 1995, 278; see also Sanders, 1988 on ‘Punic politics and the shift in government from the fifth to the fourth century’; see Hoyos, 2010, 20–38 and Miles, 2010, 112–138. See Fariselli, 2006 on the political aspects of the Barcid family.

69.
The ‘people’ here in Polybius most likely referred to the ‘citizens assembly’.

70.
This may be Polybius projecting the political shifts at Rome on to Carthage. Popular assembly called the
ham (‘m
) in Punic.

71.
For the assembly and its decision-making power see Aristotle,
Politics
2.8.3: ‘when the kings (
sufetes
) introduce business in the assembly, they do not merely let the people sit and listen to the decisions that have been taken by their rulers, but the people have the sovereign decision, and anybody who wishes may speak against the proposals introduced, a right that does not exist under the other constitutions.’ In the same passage Aristotle mentions a ‘board of five’, not otherwise referred to, who ‘controlled many important matters’. Hoyos, 2010, 31–32 provides a hypothesis.

72.
The term
sufet
literally meant judge but the role had much broader implications than the English term implies. These magistracies, more like consular powers, lived on after the destruction of Punic Carthage and inscriptions attesting to
sufetes
are found in the first century
BCE#SHCE
to the east at Lepcis Magna, and in the west of North Africa at Volubilis which demonstrates the far-reaching influence of Punic culture in North Africa throughout antiquity. North Africa was never so Punic as it was after the fall of Carthage in 146 and the diaspora that must have followed its destruction: Lancel, 1995, 358.

73.
Aristotle,
Politics
2.8.2: ‘the magistracy of the Hundred and Four corresponding to the
Ephors
(except one point of superiority the Ephors are drawn from any class, but the Carthaginians elect this magistracy by merit)’. Hoyos, 2010, 20–38 gives a concise overview of the government and state; see also 2005, 21–33, for the state at the time of Hamilcar. See Brizzi, 2009 on the political factions during Hannibal’s time.

74.
Rawlings, 2011, 257; Ameling, 1993, 155–180 on the aristocracy and Carthaginian warfare; for Carthage’s change in outlook see Eckstein, 2006, 158–180.

75.
The danger of projecting from Rome on to Carthage is acknowledged but can be useful in understanding the processes.

76.
Eckstein, 2006, 158–168 discusses Carthaginian policy in the period between the sixth and third centuries
BCE.

77.
For
Rb mhnt
, equivalent to the Greek
strategos
, see Hoyos, 2010, 33–34. The ages of Hannibal’s brothers are difficult to assess with certainty. Perhaps 2/3 years separated them; see the debate in Hoyos, 2005, 66 (note 15).

78.
Hannibal was general first, then
sufet
; Scipio was also a proconsul before being consul; it was a time of extraordinary commands. For discussion of the known working of Carthage’s government see Hoyos, 2010, 20–38; 2005, 21–33; Ameling, 1993, 83–117.

79.
Hoyos, 2005, 29–33; 47–97 with detailed bibliography looks closely at the Barcid rule in Iberia.

80.
Isokrates (fourth century
BCE
) comments that ‘… the Carthaginians and the Lacedaemonians, the best governed of all, are ruled by oligarchies at home, yet, in war, they are ruled by kings’ (ref. from Isocrates,
Nikokles
24 in
FGrH
) perhaps referring to the absolute power of a general in the field.

81.
Eckstein, 1987, xii.

82.
Hamilcar and Hannibal were prosecuted at the end of the First and the Second Punic Wars, respectively (according to Appian,
Iberica
4 and Cassius Dio 17 (Zonaras, 14–15, frag. 86). The commander at Messana at the start of the First Punic War was crucified, according to
Polybius, as was a certain Hannibal in Sardinia after the battle of Mylae (Polybius 1.11.5, and 1.24.6).

83.
It is notoriously difficult to estimate the populations of ancient cities. In 149 there were ‘seventy myriads of men’, according to Strabo (17.3.15) i.e. about 700,000. This seems a very high number when you consider that most population estimates from ancient writers would include only male citizens. The opinions are surveyed by Hoyos, 2005, 225–226. It was a large city, comparative in size and population to Syracuse certainly but perhaps not as large as contemporary Alexandria.

84.
As noted in Krings, 2008, on the literary construction behind the descriptions of Carthaginian wealth and the fertility of the land and its use in the ancient sources as a topos.

85.
The variety of housing, from elegant seafront to multi-family dwellings, is discussed in Lancel, 1995, 134–192.

86.
There is some question as to whether these libraries existed. Legend contends that after the destruction of the city the Romans gave the libraries to the neighbouring Numidians, but no trace of them exists. See Lancel, 1995, 152, the only work preserved was said to be the treatise of Mago the agronomist, also discussed by Devillers and Krings, 1996 and more recently by Krings, 2008 who offers an up-to-date view of the state of Punic agriculture in the ancient sources.

87.
The idea of a ‘clash of cultures’ has existed in the historiography of the Punic Wars for centuries (ie De Sanctis) with the Romans represented as embodying ‘Western’ values and the Carthaginians ‘Eastern’ or Semitic values – these views have long been dismissed for their colonial and anti-Semitic overtones. Both Rome and Carthage by the third century
BCE
were Hellenized, the importance of Greek cultural art, artefacts and ideas prevalent, but they were also fundamentally different in origins, language, religion and culture, aspects that became magnified once they were at war. To what degree the city was Hellenized is much debated but interesting discussions can be found in Bonnet, 2006, and articles in Prag and Quinn (eds), 2013.

88.
For Tanit/Tinnit, ‘face of Ba’al’ see Lancel, 1995, 199–204, she is sometimes equated with Astarte. For Ba’al Hammon see Lancel, 1995, 194–199. See Lipinski, 1995 for a detailed study of the pantheon of Phoenician and Punic gods and goddesses and Clifford, 1990.

89.
See Bonnet, 1986 for Melqart at Carthage; Miles, 2010, 96–111 on Melqart in the western Mediterranean. For full references see chapter 4, note 18.

90.
Bonnet, 2011, outlines the function of the Tophet and its role in the multi-layered identity of the population at Carthage. The fascinating question of the site as the location of child sacrifice is well beyond the remit of this introduction. Bonnet’s article, and that by Quinn, 2011 in the same volume, provide very up-to-date thinking and bibliography on the function of the site within the city, and beyond. The term
Tophet
is used here for convenience but the Carthaginians refer to a ‘temple’ or ‘sanctuary’ from inscriptions on the stelae found at the site.

91.
Quinn, 2011, 389.

92.
Dedicatory inscriptions often include reference to family links going back two or three generations, Quinn, 2011, 399. Where evidence of an inscription exists, some of these include the formulaic ‘vowed … because he heard his voice’. See Xella (ed.), 2013 on the inscriptions.

93.
Justin, 6.6–12 describes Dido’s self-immolation. See Bonnet, 1986 on the Melqart ritual at Carthage. See also Miles, 2010, for the story of Hamilcar the leader at Himera in 480
BCE
, which has aspects of ritual death by fire.

94.
The debate has recently returned to the headlines, i.e. a
Daily Mail
headline (23 Jan. 2014) reads: ‘Ancient Greek stories of ritual child sacrifice in Carthage are TRUE, study claims!’ The analysis rests on the estimated age of the remains of the cremated infant. The two sides of the debate are discussed most recently in P. Smith et al., 2013; Schwarz et al., 2012; and Xella et al., 2013. For a detailed examination of the Tophet and the most recent thinking across the fields of study see articles in Xella (ed.), 2013, and, as above, Quinn, 2011 and Bonnet, 2011.

95.
The evidence from Hannibal’s treaty with Philip V (see below, chapter 8) places the legal language of Carthage firmly in the traditions of the Near East.

96.
Bonnet, 2006, 373–376 discusses Demeter and Kore’s introduction to the city as described by Diodorus Siculus 14, 77, 4–5, reminding us of the direct infusion of Hellenic concepts and ideas from Sicily into Carthage. She also points out that the cult was established to appease the gods after a Carthaginian general had sacked the sanctuary of Demeter and Kore in Sicily.

97.
None more so than the sarcophagi covers found in Carthage that show a man and woman, whose features are styled in a Hellenic fashion and are thought to indicate growing Hellenization. The date of these sarcophagi is thought to be second century, and it is a difficult concept to prove, as argued by Bonnet, 2006. See Lancel, 1995, figs 194–196; the similar male image from Tarquinia is discussed recently by Fentress, 2013, 162–163.

98.
The discussion in Malkin, 2011, 18–20 on the identity of the Syracusans makes for an interesting approach to the multi-layered identity of the Carthaginians. Quinn, 2011 and Bonnet, 2011 explore the cultural identity of the Carthaginians and Phoenician diaspora through the rituals associated with the Tophet. See also Palmer, 1997 on Rome and Carthage at Peace.

99.
Slight adaptation of Arthur Miller,
A View from the Bridge
(1955), Act I, scene i.

Chapter 2 The Great Man in the Hellenistic World: From Alexander to Hamilcar

1.
With so much written about Hannibal, the secondary bibliography for the context of the Second Punic War is enormous. See the articles in Cornell et al., 1996, and more recently Eckstein, 2006, 79–117 on the interstate relations in the Hellenistic Age which provide detailed context for the Punic Wars in the wider Mediterranean; articles in Hoyos (ed.), 2011 on the Punic Wars provide excellent background to the topics covered here. See Miles, 2010 on Carthage and its rise and fall and Hannibal within that context. Barceló, 2004, 55–69 notes Hannibal’s traumatic childhood in Carthage during these years. All dates in
BCE
unless otherwise stated.

2.
This is a brief overview of a very complex period of history; for further reading in English see Gruen, 1986, Green, 1990, Shipley, 2000, and articles in Erskine, 2006. For the impact of Alexander on the way the Romans told their history see Spencer, 2002.

3.
From the sixth/fifth centuries there had been growing connectivity between the big cities of the west/central Mediterranean and the struggles in the east (i.e. Syracuse and the Peloponnesian Wars and the knock-on wars between Carthage and Syracuse as described by Diodorus). See further discussion in Eckstein, 2006, 79–180 on the bellicose climate of the third century
BCE
. Krings, 1998 provides detailed context for the relationship between Carthage and the Greek world down to 480, and Barceló, 1994 looks at the Greek sources’ perceptions of Carthage through this period.

4.
Mediterranean Anarchy
is the title of Eckstein, 2006.

5.
He is Rhodinus in Frontinus,
Strat.
1.2.3. See also Orosius 4.6.21; Arrian 7.15.4. Other great exploits and adventures, such as Xenophon and the ten thousand must also have had an impact. Is this Hamilcar related to Hannibal the Rhodian from the First Punic War? This is unknown but raises the possibility that Carthaginian surnames were passed on from generation to generation: see Polybius 1.44–47 for the exploits of Hannibal the Rhodian.

6.
The boundary between the two powers (Hellenistic Egypt and Carthaginian allied territory) being the
Ars Philaeni
once the Ptolemies had established control over Cyrenaica: see
Map 2
.